government should implement a 'fat tax'
Debate Rounds (3)
the idea, that heart disease and other bad health effects from being fat causes an increase in health care costs, in a country that is heavily subsidized by the government. so, whatever it costs should be made up for in fat taxes.
my understanding is right now the costs of being fat to the government are not sufficiently made up for in sales taxes. if it were, it would be more prohibitive for over eaters, so they would't eat and be lazy as much, and it'd be ensure the government is getting reimbursed for what it spends.
could make an exception for medically known reasons for being over weight.
i might agree with making the tax contingent on taking any government benefits, i'm not sure. probably along the idea of the 'obama care penalty' logic, i'd tax all who are fat, cause everyone needs health care at some point, especially notably those who are fat.
There are different levels of being overweight. There is overweight, and obesity. According to the CDC, if you have a BMI above 24.9 means that you are overweight. Having a BMI of above 30.0 means that you are obese. If you could please clarify which or both you are suggesting this fat tax against, I would appreciate it greatly.
Secondly, I would like to ask, are you suggesting we tax the elderly who are obese? Because, due to various problems (balance difficulties, joint problems, etc.) it may become difficult for elders to exercise. Especially elders who are not incredibly wealthy. Would these count as medically known reasons for being overweight? Especially since some elders with some joint difficulties may find it more easy to exercise, while others may not.
Thirdly, with this "Obama care penalty" logic. Are you thinking that anybody who is fat and is using health care that is necessary because of their fatness? Or do you think that anybody who is fat gets this tax no matter if they are using government healthcare or not. It would be helpful to clarify.
I got my information on BMI from http://www.cdc.gov...
Thank you, and I look forward to your rebuttal.
elderly people can eat less and may be able to do aquatic or less intensive exercise. but even if we execmpted them, it doesn't negate tht we shouldn't have a fat tax to being with.
i prefer to tax them regardless of whether they take insurance from government. ause they will likey end up on government rolls in the end. i mean, if we said you can't do that in the end, i might be open to not taxing them. but as a practical matter our government wil help them when they are having problems related to being fat. so i tend to say tax the food, and tax the weight.
However, a tax on people because of their weight is something I disagree with. A tax on people because of their weight, would be fundamentally wrong. Just because they are overweight, or "fat" does not mean that they are lesser people than those who are a normal or healthy weight. By giving these people an extra tax, you are making them pay more simply because of the way they were raised, because of their metabolism, or because they simply do not have the time or desire to change their weight.
A tax against fat people would be like imposing a tax upon people who smoke. There is nothing wrong with taxing the good that causes them harm but taxing the person who uses that product is wrong. In the case of your "fat tax" one suggestion is taxing fatty foods, and one is taxing people who are overweight. One idea is a good one, it would increase the amount of money needed to buy unhealthy food. Your other idea is bad, in that it goes against the idea that the law does not judge people based on their appearance, habits, ethnicity, religion, or health because everybody is equal.
In Pro's last argument, they stated "there's really not much different taxing the food or taxing hte person.... both are causes of bad health care." There is a lot different about taxing food and taxing a person. If you were to tax a person because they smoked, there would be an uproar. You can not tax a person just because of something they do, how they look, how healthy they are, or their background. Our government just does not function that way. Now, to the second part of that statement. "Both are causes of bad health care." Now this is a statement that confuses me. The idea that "fat" people are a cause of bad health care seems a bit preposterous. If people are having bad healthcare, that would be because of doctors who are stretched too thinly, or because of our nation's overly expensive healthcare. "Fat" people are not causing bad healthcare in the US so that part of the statement is irrelevant.
Now Pro also stated that we should "get to the source" but "stay open to all tax fatty foods". I'm assuming that by "getting to the source" Pro means taxing "fat" people. However, a tax on fatty foods (for everyone. No exceptions) would be getting more to the source than this proposed tax on "fat" people.
I don't know if I can make this any clearer, but a tax on people who are "fat" would be similar to putting a tax on smokers. It goes against the idea that in the US all people are equal, despite appearance, ethnicity, health, age, gender, etc. By imposing an extra tax on fat people would go against the principal that all men are created equal. A better alternative to improve the health of all people, fat or thin would be the idea of a tax on unhealthy, fatty foods. This would improve the health of all people.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||3|
Reasons for voting decision: Almost a troll debate, but both sides seemed to take it seriously. Pro had BoP here, and a failure to source data is what, in my opinion, caused his case to fail. Without justifying the specifics of what fat's costs are, Pro has failed to justify a tax on the fat. Con noted that it's the health issues that are of concern, not necessarily the relative fatty-ness, and asked Pro to clarify his position, which Pro claimed was unnecessary. Without that clarification, though, and without any kind of hard data, it's hard to see how Pro made his case. Arguments to Con. As always, happy to clarify this RFD.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate